Assessing the Extent of Unmet Demand through Central
Applications Office (CAO) Data
Our analysis up to this point implies that the vast majority of qualifying students seeking HE places in Ireland will have been successful and that the wage premium to third-level qualifications has generally held up despite rapid expansion of the HE system. Nevertheless, this tells us little about the impact that expansion has had on entry standards and the quality of graduates entering the labour market. We now use CAO data to further explore the extent to which the recent rapid expansion of HE provision has impacted on the profile of HE entrants on the grounds that changes in this area will have implications for future labour market projections. Should demand prove to have been constrained by the lack of available places within Irish HEIs, then our research may be under-estimating potential participation rates and, thus, the future demand for HE places. Conversely, it may be that the supply of HE places has outstripped demand and that expansion has only been facilitated at the cost of lower entry standards within universities and IoTs. This also will have implications for our research, as it may result in falls in future rates of return to HE which then raises questions regarding the sustainability of any funding scheme. An assessment of such issues can be attempted by examining patterns of entry (and rejection) among applicants to Irish HEIs over time. While such information is routinely collected by the CAO, it is only published at the institutional level and, therefore, does not provide a systems-wide perspective.
The ESRI received first preferences and offer files for the years 2000 through to 2011 from the CAO. In theory, these data should allow us to accurately assess the extent to which entry standards have varied with expansion and the extent to which the profile of those not receiving offers have altered. However, unfortunately the data were received in a format not easily accessible for research purposes and, given the amount of time required to transform each dataset into a workable format, we have restricted our analysis to the 2000 and 2011 datasets. While we have endeavoured to ensure the accuracy of our analysis, given the data problems, the results presented here should be treated with caution until such time as a validation process can be fully completed. Furthermore, we have combined data for the universities and IoTs and although a separate analysis may also have proved insightful it was not possible within the constraints of the current study.
In terms of the data from 2000, we have first preference information for 53,758 Level 8 applications; however, substantial gaps exist within the results file and after merging the data on offers and results to the first preference information, we have complete records for 42,131 (80 per cent) Level 8 applicants. Regarding the 2011 information, first preference applications for Level 8 stood at 67,360, representing a 25 per cent increase since 2000, with data available for 56,979 (85 per cent) of applicants following merging. Tables 6A and 6B detail the points profile of Level 8 applications in 2000 and 2011 respectively. Surprisingly, despite a substantial rise in the number of applications to Level 8 courses, the mean point score of applicants remained almost constant over the period; furthermore, the median point score actually increased. This would suggest that rising participation has not resulted in a decline in the overall points profile of applications, although there has been some widening of the average points range within which the majority of applicants fall, implying that both the lower and upper points range for course applications has widened. The rising numbers of applicants are principally a product of an increasing participation rate. With respect to the points profile of applicants by course of study, the mean scores have remained relatively constant while the median point scores of course applicants have generally risen. The exception relates to applications to study Human Medicine, where both the mean and median points score of applicants rose considerably over the period.
While mean point scores have remained constant by course type, the standard deviation has risen for most areas. It is probable that this effect will be, at least partially, related to IoTs offering Level 8 programmes in many more areas in 2011 than in 2000. Entry requirements to the IoT sector are, on average, lower than for universities; thus, the presence of IoTs within more subject areas over time will tend to extend the lower bound of the application points score distribution. Consistent with this interpretation, the standard deviation of human medicine courses (exclusive to the university sector in 2011) actually fell relative to 2000. It is somewhat surprising that the apparent quality standard of applicants has not deteriorated in the face of such a rapid expansion, raising some questions regarding the issue of potential grade inflation. O’Grady (2009), in an analysis of Leaving Certificate grades over the period 1992 to 2006, concluded that substantial increases in the proportion of A and B grades awarded constituted evidence of grade inflation. In an earlier more detailed study, Kellaghan and Millar (2003) found an increase in the proportion of high Leaving Certificate grades over the 1990s. However, they concluded that this could not necessarily be taken as evidence of grade inflation but could also be attributed to increased professional development for teachers and/or a greater focus on examination
Higher Education and Lifelong Learning | 63
preparation. Furthermore, they noted that variation in grades between subjects in a given year was greater than that between years. The establishment of the State Examinations Commission has also meant that the marking schemes for the Leaving Certificate have become more transparent, potentially facilitating more focused examination preparation on the part of teachers and students. In practice, it is difficult to determine the existence of grade inflation without access to a benchmark external to the examination system. Insights into the potential processes at play can be gained from an exploratory study on mathematical competency among entrants to science and technology courses in a particular university (Faulkner et al., 2010). This study found a decline in the level of maths competency (as measured by a standardised test) over the period 1998 to 2008. This decline was due to a change in the profile of entrants with no significant change in the relationship between test scores and Leaving Certificate Maths grades over time. While potential grade inflation cannot be addressed in the present study, it remains a contentious issue.
While the data are suggestive of a large rise in the demand for higher education over time, it does not necessarily imply that elements of demand have been, or are currently, unmet. The first indication of the extent to which the supply of places has kept pace with demand can be assessed by analysing the average points score of successful applicants. Any substantial rise in the points score of applicants being offered places would be indicative of a rationing in the face of excessive demand. Tables 6C and 6D indicate that the mean points achieved by individuals receiving first round Level 8 offers fell by 5 per cent from 418 in 2000 to 396 in 2011, while the median score fell further, demonstrating that supply had more than kept pace with demand. With regard to the distribution by course type, the data show that the mean points requirement generally fell by between 2 and 8 per cent for most courses, with the movement in the median again somewhat substantial. However, some more exceptional variations were observed in particular areas. The mean requirement for Architecture fell by 25 per cent between 2000 and 2011 which is likely to reflect the bursting of the property bubble.61 Mean entry points for Law courses fell by 15 per cent over the
period, again most likely reflecting the combination of a perceived decline in available jobs and the expansion of provision of courses within this area. Entry requirements for degrees in the area of Other Health Care fell by 40 per cent. It is not clear exactly what has driven this change in the Other Health Care area, but the rapid expansion of places in this category may reflect an increased diversity of course types.62 Generally, the data show some fall in mean and median entry
requirements and a widening of the point score range for each subject area;
61 This would be possible to confirm if the full data set for the period were analysed.
however, we suspect that much of these distributional changes are likely to relate to the increased presence of the IoTs within many subject areas over the period. Nevertheless, it is also possible that entry requirements have fallen somewhat and further research is required to determine the exact balance of the two influences.
As stated, at best our data currently only provide a partial snapshot of provision; however, bearing this caveat in mind, we also observe some change in the distribution of provision across the various fields of study over time. The level of provision in most areas appears to have expanded rapidly over the period, with growth particularly pronounced in the areas of the Arts and Social Sciences. Somewhat worryingly, given current policy objectives, the data here indicate that Level 8 provision in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) areas actually fell over the period both in absolute terms and as a proportion of total provision. It should be noted here that the categorisation of course types changed between 2000 and 2011 – such that there are 17 categories in 2011 while in 2000 there were only 15 (Tables 6C and 6D).
Finally, we examine the extent to which there has been any shift in the profile of individuals not receiving offers on their first preference applications. For instance, based on Tables 6C and 6D, it is reasonable to assume that 300 points represents a minimum floor for entry to a Level 8 degree programme in either year. Any movement in the points profile of individuals not receiving offers towards, or above, the assumed minimum Level 8 entry threshold would be consistent with a scenario of unmet demand. The points distribution of students not receiving offers on their Level 8 first preferences are presented in Tables 6E and 6F. The analysis is in line with previous results in that it shows that the average Leaving Certificate performance of unsuccessful applicants actually fell marginally over the period from 245 in 2000 to 239 in 2011. The results again support the view that the supply of Level 8 places has expanded in line with demand and there exists no evidence that substantial numbers of students qualifying for Level 8 courses have been unable to acquire places. However, it is worth noting that the pattern of course preferences means that some unsuccessful candidates will have lower grades than some HE entrants and the points score of unsuccessful entrants to fields such as Pharmacy, Dentistry and Human Medicine increased over the period.
Our limited analysis of the CAO dataset suggests that rising participation rates among students have driven a substantial increase in the demand for HE places over the 2000 to 2011 period and that this has taken place despite substantial falls in the size of the school leaver population. The rapid increase in participation
Higher Education and Lifelong Learning | 65
has not been associated with any marked decline in the points profile of applicants to third-level programmes, although the distribution has widened somewhat. The data suggest that the provision of HE places has more than kept pace with rising demand given that we have not observed any increases in either the mean entry requirements for Level 8 courses or mean qualification levels among unsuccessful applicants. In fact, we observe a marginal decline in both average entry levels and the points profile of applicants not receiving an offer, which would tend to indicate that Level 8 provision has been growing at a slightly more rapid pace than the demand for places.
TABLE 6A: Points of Applicants’ First Preferences Level 8 Courses, by Course Type, Year 2000
Course Type Observations Points (Mean) Points (Median) Points
(St Dev) 01. Arts/Social Science 9,401 334.14 345.00 106.70 02. Science/Applied Science 4,283 350.67 360.00 109.98 03. Agriculture/Horticulture 328 318.29 325.00 94.78 04. Education 3,819 370.65 385.00 91.29 05. Administration/Business 10,981 328.92 335.00 111.35 06. Engineering/Technology 7,992 311.41 315.00 116.59 07. Architecture 496 374.22 390.00 112.59
08. Art and Design 138 298.91 330.00 123.23
09. Law 1,980 410.77 425.00 101.68 10. Human Medicine 1,078 464.54 490.00 108.95 11. Veterinary Medicine 383 430.98 445.00 104.27 12. Dentistry 118 477.33 500.00 94.04 13. Pharmacy 242 488.55 505.00 81.47 14. Physiotherapy 484 415.65 430.00 96.04 15. Other Healthcare 408 402.25 420.00 97.37 Total 42,131 344.39 345.00 114.17
TABLE 6B: Points of Applicants’ First Preferences Level 8 Courses, by Course Type, Year 2011
Course Type Observations Points
(Mean) Points (Median) (St Dev) Points
01. Arts/Social Science 14,794 328.34 385.00 112.55 02. Science/Applied Science 7,201 344.47 415.00 115.80 03. Agriculture/Horticulture 613 350.55 435.00 89.45 04. Education 5,045 389.64 480.00 101.27 05. Administration/Business 9,321 321.56 370.00 114.20 06. Engineering/Technology 5,493 314.99 375.00 120.59 07. Architecture 555 356.54 380.00 107.46
08. Art and Design 2,106 307.63 365.00 105.20
09. Law 1,885 389.46 460.00 126.38 10. Human Medicine 2,440 500.39 560.00 91.44 11. Veterinary Medicine 462 452.81 570.00 99.40 12. Dentistry 182 457.58 580.00 121.34 13. Pharmacy 331 468.43 555.00 109.38 14. Physiotherapy 700 428.86 550.00 106.55 15. Nursing 4,235 304.09 415.00 107.74
16. Other Health Care 1,409 394.59 510.00 119.63
17. Built Environment 207 270.34 320.00 119.63
TABLE 6C: Points of Applicants Offered a Level 8 Course, by Course Type, Year 2000
Course Type Observations Points (Mean) Points (Median) Points
(St Dev) 01. Arts/Social Science 6,331 412.04 410.00 61.15 02. Science/Applied Science 4,268 418.78 415.00 67.92 03. Agriculture/Horticulture 257 390.02 385.00 54.76 04. Education 1,375 450.08 450.00 49.64 05. Administration/Business 6,215 402.41 400.00 72.64 06. Engineering/Technology 4,387 404.53 395.00 71.74 07. Architecture 97 507.42 515.00 43.16
08. Art and Design 44 388.52 397.50 101.33
09. Law 658 510.36 505.00 37.82 10. Human Medicine 254 570.93 570.00 21.13 11. Veterinary Medicine 44 550.91 560.00 73.61 12. Dentistry 41 557.32 550.00 20.47 13. Pharmacy 55 567.45 570.00 40.10 14. Physiotherapy 86 543.14 540.00 19.60 15. Other Healthcare 115 517.48 520.00 20.82 Total 24,227 417.81 410.00 72.34
TABLE 6D: Points of Applicants Offered a Level 8 Course, by Course Type, Year 2011
Course Type Observations Points
(Mean) Points (Median) (St Dev) Points
01. Arts/Social Science 12,062 382.78 335.00 90.00 02. Science/Applied Science 6,297 411.55 355.00 90.43 03. Agriculture/Horticulture 355 420.28 355.00 77.08 04. Education 2,024 456.79 405.00 83.28 05. Administration/Business 7,497 370.47 330.00 92.03 06. Engineering/Technology 3,848 379.44 315.00 97.58 07. Architecture 475 383.67 360.00 95.18
08. Art and Design 1,127 355.57 310.00 95.90
09. Law 1,258 436.62 410.00 106.63 10. Human Medicine 673 536.73 525.00 83.17 11. Veterinary Medicine 78 549.29 470.00 71.44 12. Dentistry 62 535.89 500.00 127.35 13. Pharmacy 194 547.55 500.00 50.14 14. Physiotherapy 173 531.39 455.00 84.59 15. Nursing 1,659 395.47 315.00 94.79
16. Other Health Care 586 478.23 425.00 91.52
17. Built Environment 237 316.03 285.00 91.52
Higher Education and Lifelong Learning | 67
TABLE 6E: Points of Applicants Not Offered any Level 8 Course, Course Type broken down by First
Preference, year 2000
Course Type Observations Points (Mean) Points (Median) Points
(St Dev) 01. Arts/Social Science 4,304 249.47 260.00 76.50 02. Science/Applied Science 1,560 240.59 250.00 75.96 03. Agriculture/Horticulture 145 246.52 265.00 69.49 04. Education 1,168 272.24 290.00 76.34 05. Administration/Business 5,265 241.91 250.00 79.25 06. Engineering/Technology 4,318 231.14 240.00 79.22 07. Architecture 190 269.00 280.00 88.67
08. Art and Design 76 227.96 237.50 105.16
09. Law 426 272.29 290.00 90.77 10. Human Medicine 201 307.76 320.00 111.05 11. Veterinary Medicine 58 265.60 272.50 98.62 12. Dentistry 12 257.50 267.50 93.09 13. Pharmacy 11 255.45 260.00 101.01 14. Physiotherapy 96 277.19 290.00 76.17 15. Other Healthcare 74 249.86 262.50 79.64 Total 17,904 245.04 260.00 80.19
TABLE 6F: Points of Applicants Not Offered any Level 8 Course, Course Type broken down by First
Preference, year 2011
Course Type Observations Points
(Mean) Points (Median) (St Dev) Points
01. Arts/Social Science 4,875 230.54 240.00 74.95 02. Science/Applied Science 2,297 234.89 240.00 80.09 03. Agriculture/Horticulture 218 279.31 277.50 77.40 04. Education 988 260.72 265.00 89.27 05. Administration/Business 3,111 216.64 225.00 75.17 06. Engineering/Technology 2,196 220.80 225.00 81.01 07. Architecture 126 241.43 255.00 78.40
08. Art and Design 839 242.10 245.00 80.08
09. Law 382 224.75 235.00 91.28 10. Human Medicine 485 440.95 475.00 125.68 11. Veterinary Medicine 82 345.49 345.00 113.27 12. Dentistry 47 348.62 330.00 139.81 13. Pharmacy 53 306.70 330.00 144.77 14. Physiotherapy 133 295.23 310.00 108.61 15. Nursing 2,107 243.30 255.00 86.66
16. Other Health Care 353 261.36 260.00 105.25
17. Built Environment 82 200.98 200.00 105.25
Other Aspects of Skill Formation | 69